Google Ads

[Jimmy]

I was wondering what pop ups you were talking about. As for the ads - I'm still trying to figure out if we'd make enough money off the ads to fun the site for a year. Since the ads were implemented, there's been $29.50 in revenue (though, I've yet to cash anything out so I don't know how well that part will go yet..). If the revenue continues at the same pace, the ads would almost cover the cost of the hosting for a year.

If people find the ads that annoying, I don't mind taking them down - I just don't like taking money from people to run the site.

[dean2k]

Dumb question time: what ads? okay sure I use chrome and adblock my PCs, but I don't see them on the mobile either. Win-win for me and the site then.

[Jimmy]

If you're using tapatalk, you won't see them - not sure about browsing on a mobile.

Also, they have only been added to the top of the page when you view a topic.

[CorneliusAlphonse]

i dont find them as offensive as i did before.

[Jimmy]

Do you mean content-wise? Or just ads in general?

[CorneliusAlphonse]

Just in general, content has never been an issue

[mr x]

Did I just see an ad for diamonds?

[Jimmy]

Did I just see an add for diamonds?

It's quite possible that Becky hacked in and is sending subliminal messages

[GasMD30]

I'm seeing ads for a hotel I just booked...

[Jimmy]

Ads are gone..

Wasn't generating much money, really slowed down the past couple of months, and isn't worth the effort considering I have to include it on my personal income tax filing. I decided to close the account out before reaching the minimum required amount to get a pay out.

[GuingesRock]

We need a donate button at the top instead, to click and send a few bucks anonymously, if we want to, for the upkeep and improvement of this site.

[mr x]

We have the 5% bn charge on the gb's. I thought we decided that was supposed to go towards the site fees....

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4

[Jimmy]

Yeah, I gave up... GB charge to pay for the site is fine with me. It's expensive enough to host that I don't want to pony up the money year after year.

[LeafMan66_67]

We have the 5% bn charge on the gb's. I thought we decided that was supposed to go towards the site fees....

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4

That's what I understood.

[Jimmy]

Just received notification that we are likely going to exceed our monthly executions this month - we've passed the 90% point already. If it reaches 100% the site will end up locking out until June 1. We've tried to reduce the executions but we continue to grow and use more resources..I think the only way around this is to upgrade our hosting account.

[chalmers]

Are you able to see what "uses" these executions? If we hosted pictures offsite, does that reduce the number? Photobucket, imgur, etc are free and have mobile apps.
Is this month just the continuation of a upward trend, or an outlier?
Are there settings in the forum software that are unnecessarily high in executions?
What would the fees be going from, up to?

[CorneliusAlphonse]

I think that every page loaded counts as an execution - the # of pics that show up on one page for certain things bogs it down - esp the post a picture of your pint, food porn, etc threads. Also the confirmation page that shows up after every post has gotta add a thousand or two executions monthly.

Don't know if either of these is that big,and since the number of executions continues to grow, doing something about it would simply delay the upgrade.

[Jimmy]

From what I can tell, file.php and mobiquo.php are 2 of the most executed pages (viewtopic.php is actually # 2, but that makes sense - it's loaded whenever a topic is viewed). file.php is executed everytime an image is loaded, and mobiquo.php is the tapatalk plugin. We've already tried limiting the access for bots to help lower their usage (you don't want to eliminate as this is how the page gets indexed on the search engines).

Hosting pictures offsite should help reduce the executions (as far as I know - Jeff, Rob, correct me if I'm wrong).

This month is not out of the ordinary, we're just squeaking under the limit every month.

If we were to upgrade to the next plan, hosting costs would double from 14.95/month to 29.95/month, and would bump us from 600,000 script executions allowed per month to 800,000.

[mr x]

How is our BN fund looking?

[CorneliusAlphonse]

Avatars might use the file.php as well in my quick googling

Back to work for me :p

[Jimmy]

How is our BN fund looking?

I don't know - who manages it?

Liam, you are correct. I'm pretty sure it pulls file.php for any attachments, smilies, avatars, etc.

[Celiacbrew]

How is our BN fund looking?

I don't know - who manages it?

Liam, you are correct. I'm pretty sure it pulls file.php for any attachments, smilies, avatars, etc.

And how do we contribute to the fund?

[jeffsmith]

Hosting pictures offsite should help reduce the executions (as far as I know - Jeff, Rob, correct me if I'm wrong).

It would for photos being uploaded and viewed from this point on, but any photos that are already uploaded to the site would hit file.php each time they're loaded. So while I think this would reduce executions going forward, I don't think it'll solve the problem of needing more executions per month, it'll just slow the amount of time until the next upgrade would be required.

The whole basis of pricing on executions is quite foreign to me in the hosting world. Things are usually based on three things: resource usage, disk space, and bandwidth. I know that moving the site to a new host would be a monumental task, but it may be something that's necessary at some point to keep hosting affordable.

Liam, you are correct. I'm pretty sure it pulls file.php for any attachments, smilies, avatars, etc.

Yup, any hosted file viewed will hit file.php.

[Jimmy]

Hosting pictures offsite should help reduce the executions (as far as I know - Jeff, Rob, correct me if I'm wrong).

It would for photos being uploaded and viewed from this point on, but any photos that are already uploaded to the site would hit file.php each time they're loaded. So while I think this would reduce executions going forward, I don't think it'll solve the problem of needing more executions per month, it'll just slow the amount of time until the next upgrade would be required.

The whole basis of pricing on executions is quite foreign to me in the hosting world. Things are usually based on three things: resource usage, disk space, and bandwidth. I know that moving the site to a new host would be a monumental task, but it may be something that's necessary at some point to keep hosting affordable.

I don't care who the site is hosted by, but wouldn't executions just be another term for resource usage? This is how they describe the executions "You have exceeded the daily Account Executions limit of your account. Exceeding the CPU Time limit means that the execution of your script(s) takes too much CPU resources."

With our current hosting plan, we have 20g of disk space and unlimited bandwidth.

[jeffsmith]

I don't care who the site is hosted by, but wouldn't executions just be another term for resource usage? This is how they describe the executions "You have exceeded the daily Account Executions limit of your account. Exceeding the CPU Time limit means that the execution of your script(s) takes too much CPU resources."

With our current hosting plan, we have 20g of disk space and unlimited bandwidth.

Not entirely—a lot of hosting companies don't have a set amount of CPU time you can use per month. What you normally have is a resource cap (memory and CPU usage) that you can't max out for an extended period of time because it affects all of the other customers that are on the same server as you.